But this doesn't sound psycho-cocaine to you?
What do you propose to do at the road intersections where there are currently tressles cut into the enbankment to allow for all the cross streets passing through the ROW?

When people buy a house or condo along an existing el or embankment they are fully aware of the noise. The people who bought or built property along the Rock ROW after cessation of service did so with the so-far accurate assumption that service would never resume. Not only that, but they have some nice and rare wilderness in their backyards for their families and pets to play. This is not a good reason to never re-activate the line but a small concession like not running late night trains is not unfair, especially since the line's value to the greater system during late hours would be close to nil. Would you buy a house along the Rock at today's price if they announced that they would re-activate the line 24/7? As much as I favor mass transit, I wouldn't but I would definitely be more interested in one that's a few blocks away from the ROW then I would now.

Point taken, but I would make sure that the A would still run to Rockaway Park during peak hours, otherwise you would have the kind of never-ending discussion similiar to the Lefferts situation. (which I favor to keep as is)
Note that I favor turning the C (or better, the V if the Rockaway line were extended to 63rd, QB) north onto the Rock viaduct (via a new flyover) if that line were ever re-activated.

No system can be implemented without problems. Even when all of the bugs out there will still be errors. Before OPTO there were train crashes, people stuck in equipment, etc. After OPTO (and possibly ATO), there will still be train crashes, signal problems, etc. It is all of matter of which system will provide fewer incidents. However, this cannot be known until OPTO is further developed and the bugs are worked out. At that point, OPTO could prove to be a success or it could be a massive failure

You'd have to sink it even deeper at any road crossing. Right now you're saying to put it IN the embankment. If you do that, the line becomes at grade, meaning it will cross streets AT GRADE. So then you have to go down further just to avoid the streets just because you wanted to put the line in the ground. Seems like an expensive proposition to me.

Sorry-- Poorly worded-
Meant:
Running the LRV on the ROW is likely significantly less offensive then the construction of a cut and cover tunnel would be to those living around it. Cut and cover is PAINFUL to be around when its built.

But, what you dont seem to understand is, Construction takes a decent amount of time, and LRVs are EXTREMELY unoffensive. They dont make much noise.
Also as was mentioned earlier, More noise comes out of tunnel gratings then comes out of an embankment(remember, this is fairly high up for its length)

Ask the idiots in South Pasadena Calif., what they think of LRVs. Salaam Allah posted links to a number of articles about it. Yes the line got done (and that's good) but not before a lot of payoffs were made and some of these people almost threatened self immolation. You would have thought the world was ending.

Again, the Rockaway Line was NOT some sort of mickey Mouse railroad ROW like let's say the old unimproved Whitestone or Bushwick branches. This was an improved ROW, high up on enbankment. It's more improved than many current LIRR lines.

Re: Logic vs. NIMBY

This is going to be a "tough sell" as we ALL know that after the rail service alot of things happened along the ROW. For starters, LIRR had told homeowners on certain sections on the ROW that they could "extend" their backyards. Also as the ROW crosses Park Lane South, it passes a building that was converted from a factory to a residental building. Who now wants to listen to a train rumbling so close by. Overall, no one wants any kind of construction disruption that would have to take place to improve and rebuild the ROW. A Light Rail would probably be a better solution since it offers flexablity over heavy-rail applications. Or something like the Norristown train that uses one car over a 3rd rail application. Any thoughts?

Re: Logic vs. NIMBY

Yes..in certain parts of the ROW, homeowners were allowed to "extend" their backgrounds to the ROW. That is most likely why these homeowners dont want to have the ROW activated. A fear that they would loose what was given to them and or the noise level that might come with the ROW.

Re: Logic vs. NIMBY

I have done that, and there's nothing "major", sometimes an occasional vegetable garden or something, or mostlly owners just throwing their leaves or branches from their own hard over the fence onto the bottom of the enbankment. But then again, even in the cases were people may have "claimed" a piece of ROW, that doesn't mean it was done legally, other than some guy saying I am going to grow a few tomato plants there.

No.
Youre wrong YET AGAIN.
Cut and cover uses gratings, Look at the 63rd line as Mr. Edwards says.
Ventilation plants have ALWAYS been used for deep bore tunneling. was true in the early 1900s and is true today.

As the 47/50 tower says, Think before you post(or something like that... ).

You are a moron. He already said that quiet zones would not be an issue with a Rockaway line LRT, yet you insist on continuing to cite from an example which has already been proven moot.

If you're going to fall back on the NIMBY line about racism as a reason that an LRT won't be built then nothing will be built. I could honestly give a shit what you think about it, it's a blade that cuts both ways, and if it kills an LRT project then it'll kill your supremely poorly thought out grade level subway between two berms plan.